Women and visible minorities are often given the absolute worst conditions for getting out of the shit cycle started by white dudes. This can mean that they don’t have great scores on tests and stuff and that can look like they are, by default, not as smart if you’re the kind of person whose brain is barely firing enough to allow you to breathe.
So you extend that out and suddenly it’s “wait if they get hired at all and they’re not as smart that means they don’t deserve it!”. DEI does, I’m sure, bring some people in that might not be the best candidates but it never brings in people who are unqualified for the job like the racists believe, and the even the metric for “best” on paper is clouded by the aforementioned lack of support.
They’re connected because these people believe that there’s no way a straight white male would ever lose to a minority or a woman despite the fact that most of the people who believe it are huge losers barely stumbling through life while ignoring the fact that they are supported by everyone else.
I’m a straight, white dude whose parents can financially support me when I need it shit’s hard enough as-is. To act like I don’t have serious privilege and like so many people don’t have it even worse than me…god I can’t even fathom that level of self-centered egotism.
If someone hired someone provably less qualified that would be easy grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. The problem is actually usually the opposite. People from disadvantaged groups often have to work way harder and be way more qualified just to be treated equally in society.
DEI isn’t about who we hire and fire specifically but about how we as a society of institutions act overall. People in DEI might review the hiring and firing practices more holistically as one part of their job. Possibly focusing on recruiting practices including all communities (who are you advertising the job to?), job descriptions being simplified and more honest to what is actually required (broadening who qualifies), training hiring and firing authorities about unconscious bias, etc. That enables them to follow the eeoc laws and truly hire people that are most qualified while having a more representative candidate pool, resulting in a more representative group of employees. When you’re correcting your hiring practices to be more equitable, you don’t need to hire people less qualified.
DEI would also be how they are treated once there, how the organization treats their staff in a fair and equitable manner. How current policies and processes can be changed to remove structural bias. How to best utilize a broad range of perspectives to improve your organization. For business often how you can include a broader range of targets to market to, etc. Analyzing the structure as a whole for institutional bias. That’s all DEI.
The right has perverted the concept of DEI to make people believe unqualified people are landing positions when that’s not what DEI is even there for.
Women and visible minorities are often given the absolute worst conditions for getting out of the shit cycle started by white dudes. This can mean that they don’t have great scores on tests and stuff and that can look like they are, by default, not as smart if you’re the kind of person whose brain is barely firing enough to allow you to breathe.
So you extend that out and suddenly it’s “wait if they get hired at all and they’re not as smart that means they don’t deserve it!”. DEI does, I’m sure, bring some people in that might not be the best candidates but it never brings in people who are unqualified for the job like the racists believe, and the even the metric for “best” on paper is clouded by the aforementioned lack of support.
They’re connected because these people believe that there’s no way a straight white male would ever lose to a minority or a woman despite the fact that most of the people who believe it are huge losers barely stumbling through life while ignoring the fact that they are supported by everyone else.
I’m a straight, white dude whose parents can financially support me when I need it shit’s hard enough as-is. To act like I don’t have serious privilege and like so many people don’t have it even worse than me…god I can’t even fathom that level of self-centered egotism.
If someone hired someone provably less qualified that would be easy grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. The problem is actually usually the opposite. People from disadvantaged groups often have to work way harder and be way more qualified just to be treated equally in society.
DEI isn’t about who we hire and fire specifically but about how we as a society of institutions act overall. People in DEI might review the hiring and firing practices more holistically as one part of their job. Possibly focusing on recruiting practices including all communities (who are you advertising the job to?), job descriptions being simplified and more honest to what is actually required (broadening who qualifies), training hiring and firing authorities about unconscious bias, etc. That enables them to follow the eeoc laws and truly hire people that are most qualified while having a more representative candidate pool, resulting in a more representative group of employees. When you’re correcting your hiring practices to be more equitable, you don’t need to hire people less qualified.
DEI would also be how they are treated once there, how the organization treats their staff in a fair and equitable manner. How current policies and processes can be changed to remove structural bias. How to best utilize a broad range of perspectives to improve your organization. For business often how you can include a broader range of targets to market to, etc. Analyzing the structure as a whole for institutional bias. That’s all DEI.
The right has perverted the concept of DEI to make people believe unqualified people are landing positions when that’s not what DEI is even there for.